STFC Accelerator Review

Dan Tovey

University of Sheffield

Executive Summary • Accelerator science central to

STFC

• Field in UK has grown rapidly over

past decade

• Focused review of accelerator

science was recommended by

2013 Programmatic Review

• Ad hoc panel of accelerator

experts and facility users formed

– NB not constituted for peer-review

– ranking / grading of projects not

performed

• Input sought from wide variety of

stake-holders – pro-forma

submission and effort summary

tables

Executive Summary • Report to enable SB to develop high

level strategy and to guide ASB as it

develops more detailed strategy and

prioritised roadmap

• Report organised by science area

under sub-headings: factual

overview, findings, comments &

recommendations

• Key observations:

– Internationally leading programme

has developed over past 10 years –

community to be congratulated

– Broad programme with different

portfolios in different groups

– Collaboration should be encouraged

– Broad range of applications – more

prominence must be given to this

aspect

Terms of Reference Review seeks to provide a narrative and commentary on the

following aspects of the accelerator programme:

– The current organisation and delivery of the programme;

– Details of individual projects and programmes;

– Areas of intrinsic excellence and global recognition;

– Cost effectiveness and value for money;

– Cross-cutting areas, and any gaps or overlaps;

– Links with appropriate universities and facilities;

– Areas of synergy, including with laser-related activities;

– Leadership and the key positions in international

collaborations;

– Areas of added value, including technologies and industry;

– Areas and opportunities for future engagement, providing the

UK with access to national and international facilities and

cutting edge technology.

Review Panel Membership

• Prof Dan Tovey - University of Sheffield (Chair)

• Dr Rob Appleby – University of Manchester

• Prof Riccardo Bartolini – John Adam Institute, DLS

• Dr Oliver Bruning - CERN

• Prof Jim Clarke – STFC ASTeC

• Mr Jonathan Flint – Oxford Instruments

• Prof Sue Kilcoyne – University of Huddersfield

• Dr John Thomason – STFC ISIS Accelerator Group

Report Structure

• Governance

• Neutron sources

• Synchrotron light sources

• Free electron lasers

• High energy lepton machines

• High energy hadron machines

• Novel and plasma accelerators

• Underpinning technologies

• Global challenges and Impact

• Optimal accelerator programme

Accelerator Programme

Governance 1. The accelerator institutes should be encouraged to develop further their own

unique research identities. This aspect of the institutes should be considered

carefully during the next round of funding reviews in 2016.

2. The accelerator institutes, ASTeC, UK facilities and university groups should

be encouraged to collaborate further and coordinate closely to deliver the

skills and technologies required by STFC-funded accelerator projects.

3. The development of formal management structures and associated oversight

for larger-scale and capital-phase projects as set out in STFC’s Project

Management Framework should be enforced.

4. STFC should ensure that it maintains, through input and advice from ASB, a

high-level strategic oversight of the entirety of the accelerator R&D

programme, its content and balance, including that of the accelerator institutes

and ASTeC, to ensure coherence and value for money of the activities it

supports.

5. This strategic oversight should also include an awareness of the international

context and information from non-STFC funded projects, as and when

appropriate.

Governance

6. STFC should consider whether the oversight mechanism for the Institutes and

the laboratory departments should be updated to take account of occasions

when core funding is used to support what would normally be considered to

be ‘new projects’ such as the detailed design, construction and/or operation of

specific accelerator facilities for physics exploitation or major upgrades to

existing facilities. This recommendation is not intended to cover lower level,

on-going activities (such as maintenance and minor upgrades) at facilities,

which should continue to be monitored according to current practice.

7. When reviewing particle physics or nuclear physics projects with substantial

accelerator science components, the PPRP should seek advice from

accelerator experts, and should continue to ensure that such activities are

considered fairly alongside other work-packages.

8. STFC should set up an Accelerator PRD (APRD) scheme, administered by ASB,

to support small-scale accelerator R&D activities in any area of accelerator

science.

Neutron Sources

9. ISIS should take the lead in specifying ISIS upgrades and then coordinating

contributions from interested parties (with appropriate funding).

10.STFC should establish the UK’s accelerator and target contributions to ESS as

soon as possible and provide a clear process for accessing resources to

ensure UK institutes are able to take leadership in ESS work.

11. ISIS, CI and other partners should consider opportunities for collaboration in

the area of RF technology development.

12.CI, JAI, ISIS, FETS and any other interested parties should look at whether

there is scope for a more coordinated approach across the community to beam

diagnostics for neutron source applications.

13. ISIS should investigate if there are suitable partners (possibly ASTeC, CERN,

JPARC or CSNS) to produce drop-in replacements for the ISIS synchrotron

dipole and quadrupole normal-conducting AC magnets.

Synchrotron Light Sources

14.STFC should continue to support R&D in Diamond in order to allow it to remain

competitive. The broad expertise developed at ASTeC, CI, Diamond and JAI in

the accelerator science and technology required for light sources should be

maintained by STFC with appropriate R&D programmes focussed on high

brightness synchrotron light sources.

15.DLS should seek funding to support the conceptual design for a full upgrade

of the Diamond-II lattice. Should Diamond-II be funded the DLS team should

lead the upgrade of the facility.

16.STFC should encourage further collaboration between ASTeC, CI universities,

JAI and Diamond. In particular, expansion of the scientific links with ASTeC

and CI could be beneficial for both parties.

Free Electron Lasers

17.Should construction of CLARA be approved a suitable mechanism should be

established to evaluate the merit and feasibility of any accelerator experiments

proposed to be carried out, to set the priorities, and to allocate appropriate

beam time.

18.The accelerator institutes and other university groups should consider further

engagement with FEL projects to take advantage of the associated

opportunities.

High Energy Lepton Machines

19.STFC should carefully watch the international situation for future lepton

colliders, to understand if the UK funding profile should decline or increase.

20.STFC should encourage closer interaction between linear collider and FEL and

light source communities.

21.STFC and MICE-UK should align the UK programme with the plan emerging

from the U.S. Department of Energy review.

High Energy Hadron Machines

22.STFC should undertake a strategic re-evaluation of UK contributions to

international high energy hadron colliders by the end of 2018 in light of the

LHC Run 2 results and developments in the global landscape (e.g. ILC

approval in Japan or circular e+/e- collider approval in China).

23.The UK HL-LHC accelerator community should prepare to seek funding for this

project from STFC after the end of the EU funded HiLumi Design Study. These

preparations should include the formal definition of a UK project with a

nominated contact person and management structure.

24.The UK accelerator community should prepare a coherent plan for UK

participation in FCC studies that takes into account potential EU funding.

Novel and Plasma Accelerators

25.Funding should be sought to enable some ns-FFAG projects to reach the

demonstrator stage to optimise the potential for links between UK industry and

this field of research.

26.STFC should consider, with appropriate peer review and tensioning, allocating

further funds to support ALICE operation and seek additional funding from a

broad range of external bodies for continued operation of ALICE as a user

facility and as a test-bed for future SCRF and ERL related activities.

27.The UK laser plasma wakefield groups proposing to work towards wakefield

accelerator based FELs should consider working more closely with

‘conventional’ RF accelerator based FEL designers to ensure that their efforts

are effectively targeted

Underpinning Technologies,

Gaps and Overlaps

• Beam control systems: strong

• Beam dynamics design and simulation: strong

• Beam instrumentation and diagnostics: strong

• Electron and ion sources: strong

• Electron recovery linacs (ERL): strong

• Hadron and neutron production targets: strong

• Normal conducting and permanent magnets: strong

• Vacuum system design: strong

• Lasers: strong but vulnerable

• Normal conducting RF: strong but vulnerable

• Parallel computing: emerging strength

• Superconducting RF (SCRF): emerging strength

• Cryogenics: vulnerable

• AC and superconducting magnets: weak

Underpinning Technologies,

Gaps and Overlaps

28.STFC should seek to leverage new funding streams in areas of strength in

underpinning technologies.

29.ASB should consider prioritising areas where lack of capability is

compromising the UK accelerator programme.

Global Challenges and Impact

30. Interest in ADSR systems has grown as a by-product of accelerator research,

rather than a demand driven, energy programme. Decisions in this area should

only be made after consultation with other funding bodies to ensure co-

ordination of effort nationally and internationally.

31.Peer review panels and oversight committees of accelerator projects should

continue to include engineering representation.

32.The STFC should put in place a method of collecting data regarding the

eventual employment of staff and students who have worked on the

accelerator programmes. This should be in a standard format and indicate

whether they operate in the UK or elsewhere

Optimal Accelerator Programme

33.The balance of the UK accelerator R&D programme should evolve to match UK

priorities for accelerator facilities. ASB should be responsible for monitoring

the balance of the programme.

34.ASB should be able to provide advice on a prioritized list of major investment

opportunities in different price brackets, based on the community’s priorities

for future facilities and projects identified by the Advisory Panels, in

preparation for any future BIS capital funding opportunities. This list should be

considered by SB to ensure optimum fit with STFC science priorities.

35.The role of ASTeC in the CI should be clarified by the Directors and STFC prior

to the next CI funding review. This should help with future requests for funding

to STFC and the development of strategy by the CI management.

36.The UK accelerator community should develop formal national project

structures, in partnership with STFC, early in the life-cycle of major projects in

order to prepare for timely bids for capital funds if/when resources become

available.

Optimal Accelerator Programme

37.The UK accelerator R&D programme supporting particle physics facilities

should be reviewed by STFC in 2018 in alignment with the European Strategy

for Particle Physics update.

38. In scenarios of flat or reduced funding for accelerator R&D ASB should

consider the balance between ‘near-market’ R&D supporting UK facilities in

line with STFC strategy and more speculative work.

39. In scenarios of small increases in funding for accelerator R&D investment to

further strengthen underpinning technologies should be considered. For larger

increases new projects should be considered.

Concluding Remarks

• Breadth and strength of programme extremely impressive

– Has led to international leadership: intellectual and coordination

• Benefited from significant investment from STFC and other

funders leading to growth and diversification

– Diversity both strength and weakness

– High priority for future on encouraging collaboration to foster

coherence and value for money

• If major new facilities are to be built further investment in

accelerator science in the UK will be required.